By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The sum up of the complaint is as follows:- The Complainant is a purchaser of the Diesel Pickup Goods Autorikshaw No.KL 12C 8664 in the year 2007. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, the Complainant gave outright Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1^st Opposite Party. The terms and conditions with the Opposite Party was to repay the loan amount in 36 instalments of Rs.3,670/- each. The repayments of the amount in chart were paying regularly. The endorsement of higher purchase was also in R.C which was not handed over to the Complainant for the payment of tax. The Opposite Party produced the R.C and it was taken back by them with an assurance that the R.C would be given if the major portion of the loan amount was closed. The 1^st Opposite Party is with some lame excuses that the original R.C is with the financier. The Complainant when demanded for the issuance of R.C the Opposite Parties are not ready to act positively. More over the complainant is in a position not to run the vehicle. The C.F of the vehicle failed to be taken in the absence of R.C. The insurance, tax and other requirements for plying the vehicle could not be dealt. In the absence of R.C, the Complainant has a loss of Rs.15,000/- resulted by the defective service of the Opposite Party. There may be an order directing the Opposite party to.

(a) Issue the Complainant the original registration certificate of the vehicle

No. KL 12C 8664.

(b) The Complainant is to be compensated for the non renewal of insurance, tax payment

along with other cost and compensation. The loss of income ie Rs.30,000/- of the

Complainant is also to be compensated along with cost Rs.50,000/-.

2. The Opposite Parties filed version in short it is as follows:- It is admitted by the Opposite Parties that the vehicle No. KL 12C 8664 is under the hire purchase with Opposite Parties. The hypothecation in the R.C was endorsed in the R.C Book that was given back to the Complainant. The certificate of fitness was taken by the Complainant from time to time and the R.C book was made use of that purpose. The allegation of the Complainant that the vehicle is in an idle stage is nothing but false. The vehicle is still in operation, the instalments that are to be cleared as per the chart was not performed by the Complainant. After registering the vehicle the certificate was issued to the Complainant. It is not in practice of the Opposite Party to keep in custody of R.C after endorsement of the hypothecation. The R.C books are usually given to the concerned party. The claim of the Complainant for the cost and compensation are not supported by any evidence and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

3. The points in consideration are:

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of Complainant and Opposite Parties. Exts. A1 to A3 and B1 are the documents produced in this case. The Complainant and Opposite Parties have also given oral testimony in this case. The case of the Complainant is that the registration certificate was in custody of the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the financier. The vehicle was purchased under higher purchase and the arrangements of finance was done by the 1^st Opposite Party. The vehicle could not be plied in the absence of the fitness certificate and the original R.C which was in custody of the Opposite Parties. The contention of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are that the registration certificate was given back to the Complainant after endorsement of hire purchase in the registration certificate. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed proof affidavit separately along with a documents Ext.B1 the copy of the despatch register dated 04.08.2008. It shows that the R.C was sent to K.V.R Kalpetta for tax purpose. On perusal of the documents produced, it is to be considered that the R.C Book of the vehicle No. KL 12C 8664 was in custody of the K.V.R. Motors the 1^st Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has no case that the registration certificate is lost from their possession. More over on examination of the 1^st Opposite Party it is also admitted that for hypothecation of a vehicle two photos, I.D proof, copy of the tax receipt, copy of the insurance certificate along with cheques are to be produced by the party and it is to be kept with them. The Complainant's plea in this case is to direct the Opposite Parties to give the registration certificate of the vehicle which is kept with the Opposite Party. The Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party admitted that the EMI required to be remitted by the Complainant are not cleared. No chart is produced showing the details of payment in this case. The cash voucher produced by the Complainant shows that the Complainant remitted the 36 monthly instalments including one advance EMI. Any how a considerable portion of the amounts liable is remitted by the Complainant. The withholding of the registration certificate by the 1^st Opposite Party is a deficiency in service. It is also admitted that in the absence of certificate of fitness the plying of the Goods Autorikshaw is impracticable. The plea of the Complainant that he had a considerable loss in the non operation of the vehicle cannot be seen lightly. The 1^st Opposite Party has to give the Complainant the registration certificate. In the absence of the same, the Complainant has to apply for the duplicate R.C and the cost required for it is to be met by the 1^st Opposite Party.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to give back the registration certificate to the Complainant. In any circumstances if the R.C is found lost from the possession of the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant can apply for duplicate Registration Certificate under the expense of the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant is also entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) from the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties towards the inoperation of the vehicle. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are also liable to pay the Complainant Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost. This is to be complied by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 26^th March 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Muhammed Riyas Complainant.

PW2. Saju. Driver.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Abdul Samad. Manager, K.V. R. Motors, S. Bathery.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of the Certificate of Registration.

A2 series (17 in numbers) Receipt.

A3. Cash Voucher. dt: 20.05.2007

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

B1. Copy of the Despatch Register (Page No. 270).